Quorum and Voting Percentage (Q/V%)

The Quorum and Voting Percentage (Q/V%) is a tool the Gatekeeper is tasked with using in order to regulate the passage of proposals at The Ballot.

The Q/V% indicator will always be based on the *active* membership and will range between 20% and 90% for both the necessary quorum size (Q) and the requisite # of votes in order to approve the proposal (V). (see some examples at the bottom of this page.)

The Gatekeeper is responsible for regulating the welfare, reputation, and productivity of  we-the-people.earth (as much as is possible) through the use of this tool. He or she must make several determinations regarding each proposal seeking access to The Ballot of the digital-platform.

Gatekeepers are constrained by policy in their calculation through the directives listed below and must indicate a tally between of -5 and +5, (with 0 being neutral - no inherent risk or value) for each of these directives. Each directive will be considered by the Gatekeeper in order to determine the overall Q/V% for each proposal submitted. Their consideration is the following:

If this proposal were to be accepted by the we-the-people.earth membership

and were to become active:

- What is the potential risk to the financial well-being of the Corporation?

- What is the potential risk to the reputation of the Corporation and its stature

in the community at-large?

- How well does the proposal align with the Mission and Priorities of the Corporation?

- How complete and accurate is the proposal?

- What is the proposal's potential value to the economic welfare of the Corporation?

- What is the proposal's potential value to the cultural welfare of the Corporation?

- What is the proposal's potential value to the wise governance of the Corporation?

- What is the proposal's potential value to the welfare and well-being

of the community at-large?

The Gatekeeper must record the results of his or her determination in detail and present them with the proposal when it enters The Forum for Deliberation and again when entering The Ballot for a vote. The owner(s) of the proposal may contest the Q/V% attached to their proposal if they feel it is unfair at which point the determination will go to a vote by the BOD of the Corporation. If the owner(s) of the proposal contest the Gatekeepers Q/V%, they must explain in explicit terms which directive(s) they claim the Gatekeeper has calculated inaccurately. If the BOD agrees by a majority vote of thos members present, the BOD will set the Q/V% by averaging the stated Q/V% of the composite vote by the members of the Board. The resulting BOD Q/V% will be final.

If the Q/V% referendum proceeds to a vote by the BOD, the ballot will look like this:

What percentage of the active Corporation membership (representing a quorum) do you think should vote on this proposal in order to accurately represent the interests of the Co-op?

What percentage of the above quorum, should be required to approve this proposal in order to satisfy the concerns of the "Directives of the Gatekeeper at the Forum"?

Some hypothetical examples:

1.) An Event Proposal - A group of owner/members want to stage a Dog Care Day as a fundraiser for a proposed project to build a new dog park on the south end of town. The fundraiser will be staged at a private parking lot and the organizers have a budget request of $300 to pay for renting the lot, some dog bathing supplies, as well as some fliers for advertising the event. The Gatekeeper has given the owners of the proposal a Q/V% of 20/40 which means that 20% of active owners would need to vote on the proposal, and 40% of those voting would need to approve the proposal in order for it to pass and receive the proposed $300 grant by the Foundation. The Gatekeeper determined that the risk of the event was minimal compared to the potential benefit and the grant could easily be covered by the available funds at The Foundation.  

2.) A Policy Proposal - An owner has suggested through a proposal that the allowable membership age be lowered from 18 to 16 yrs of age. The proposal has generated both some mild opposition and some mild support. The owners of the proposal have clearly stated their case for the potential benefits as well as some potential risks. The imagined benefits and risks have been thoroughly discussed by those concerned during Deliberation. The proposal does not have a budget request and The Gatekeeper's tally of the overall risk/benefit is close to neutral so she has given it a Q/V% of 50/50 which means that 50% of the active membership would need to vote on it, and of that 50% quorum, 50% of those voting on the measure would be needed to approve it. An amendment to the proposal stated that the membership age change would be a trial for one year and that the proposal would automatically be re-entered to The Ballot for another vote at that time, minus the sunset clause so that the proposed change would then be permanent. The amendment was accepted and added to the proposal before the vote at The Ballot.

3.) A Project Proposal - A large group of owners have collaborated on a proposal for the construction and ongoing operation of a Makerspace for the owner/members, as well as for use by the general community at-large. It's taken several months to build the proposal and it has gone through several iterations and amendments at the Forum where it has gained large support by the general membership. The budget for the first phase, which is about to be voted on at The Ballot, is for $1,500,000 to cover the purchase of the land, the architectural renderings, permits, and a project coordinator. It is assumed that the bulk of the cost of the project would be covered by the sale of security tokens, but that $200,000 would likely need to issued as a grant by the Foundation to complete the budget for the Makerspace's first year of operational expenses. The Foundation has a budget for that, but not for much more than that considering the Corporation's projected operating costs over the coming years. Given that the preponderance of the financial risk would be on individual investors, and not the Corporation, the financial risk benefit ratio for we-the-people.earth is considered by all involved to be relatively low. According to his summary, the Gatekeeper agrees. After extensive consideration he tags the Q/V% at 70/55. His reasoning is that, because of the high overall cost of the project, and the high impact of it relative to the larger community (who have been independently polled and are generally very favorable), a large percentage of the owner/members should make up the quorum, but that a relatively small majority would be sufficient to approve the proposal for this initial phase of the project.

Copyright © 2024

We will own everything.  We will be prosperous.  The world will be at peace.

  As together we choose, together it will be.